@bii I mean i agree with your definition. erotica is "lighter" than porn sure.

@freemo @bii

Philosophically, I would argue that unchecked libertarianism, which permits "two consenting adults" to do anything they want (so long as consent was obtained) and allows individuals to act in whatever way they want without imposing moral imperatives unless they harm another person, is not a good system to achieve widespread eudaimonia. Instead, it ultimately results in most individuals being slaves to their desires.

Without a defined set of boundaries on "sin" (i.e. what is morally wrong), societies ultimately end up expanding liberties into those boundaries to the point that ostensible self-harm becomes the norm (see the obesity epidemic for an alternative example; note I'm saying this as a current fat guy).

Gluttony "used to be" a sin for a multitude of reasons, and we are now acutely aware of all the negative impacts on the body and mind that over consumption has, and yet the issue persists (please note that I am not claiming those with real biological issues are necessarily at fault, but most obese individuals are not biologically impaired beyond their control).

The question we must then posit is thus: does consuming explicit sexual material (or producing it) have similar harmful effects on the body and/or mind? The answer to this is yes, both on an individual and societal level. Individually, many men report early-onset erectile dysfunction, inability to achieve orgasm with real partners, and diminished appetite for actual partners but increased appetite for the illicit substitute. Enough of these individuals in a population, may have untold impacts on the culture itself (e.g. japanese herbivore men and their plummeting birthrate).

Thus, if consumption of the product is harmful, then production of it is also harmful (both for society but also the "stars", you can see loads of examples of this in the industry with predatory contracts, grooming of under-age women to take jobs upon turning 18, trafficking, kidnapping, spread of STIs, etc.). There may be a case for "responsible use" or "free-range production" but substances that are targeted as super-normal stimuli are highly addictive and blunt our responses to "realistic" stimuli, thus making the super-normal stimulus more desirable (an effect mentioned above). Of course, there's also the hedonic treadmill effect which causes people to seek ever increasingly stimulating material (that is, their tastes may change over time to desire material that is more explicit than they started on).

Of course, this is all the worst case, but the existence of this case and its prevalence, I think, speaks volumes.

That's my 2 cents, take it for what you think it's worth.

P.S. I have citations for the claims I've made but I'm at work and can't look them up right now. If you want me to link them in a followup toot, lemme know.

@johnabs

So the main purpose of morality is to encourage behaviors that make society the most fit society possible? (fit as in having the ability to thrive)

@bii

@freemo @bii

Not my point or what I believe (I'm a divine command theorist lmao), but from a secular perspective, I think that's one of the strongest possible arguments for it.

Additionally, it does not mean that society itself is thriving (such a definition of morality would permit rape/pillage for the benefit of MY society over yours, not the cosmopolitan ideal of humanity as a whole), but that each individual has sufficient resources and the ability to control themselves in such a manner that maximizes their ability to self-realize.

Lack of self control is arguably the root of all moral failings; hence, the ability to control oneself in each tempting moment to favor long term chances of self-actualization is the best secular definition of acting morally I can think of.

@johnabs @freemo @bii

I really like your take on this subject, it's well written out and to the point.

@voidabyss @freemo @bii Thanks! I appreciate the positive feedback 😁

@freemo One way I've heard them distinguished is that "erotica" is art that happens to deal substantively with sexually stimulating subject matter (such as to honor physical intimacy, to rejoice in the human form, to celebrate sexual bliss), while "porn" is commercial, transactional, graphic content, created *solely* for the goal of satisfying its consumers' lustful needs through objectification.